No random tests
Node 12 should be enabled
Liked very much the (i==0 ? 2 : 1) response type control, made me smile.
(i==0 ? 2 : 1)
Tests are using Test.expect.
Not an issue
May be /(\d)\1*/ in isPalindrome do better ...
Broken analogy. Dojos do not intentionally teach bad habits.
Why not change it to an actual useful task like mapping an array of values to an array of keys or something?
Sure, it's a lot easier of a problem, but at least it makes sense and trains you how to do something that is useful.
And there's still "insight" to gain...
You cannot, that's true. But this is a dojo here... and the kata should give you an insight.
btw: In Karate you won't defend yourself running a kata (e.g. Empi or Unsu) when you gonna beaten up by some rude guys.
Did you just use regular expression to parse a palindrome? You monster.
If you are looking for fastest solution, for loop should always be faster than any Array prototype methods.
A faster Array prototype method for this problem should be a single reduceRight since there is no concat required after as opposed to a filter solution.
I starred for at least a minute trying to figure out how '9876543210'.indexOf(number) >= 0; would tell you if the number was sequentialDesc. Then blamo! That was much better than the way I did it given the rules.... Well played.
Nice one, but I believe the description could use some improvements - specifically, I think it should be more specific about the argument names.
There's no information indicating whether the argument names should be extracted from the value (as the usage example might imply) or fixed arg names should be used (as the test cases seem to indicate).
I'm guessing the latter was the original intent, but seeing how most solutions focus on parsing the values, the description definitely is not clear enough in this regard.
Well, it does not need more, but better test cases, like using special char words... as described in instructions. The random test case generator is a nice thing, but not very productive and not comprehensive. WOuld be much better to test exactly what's written in the instructions. Nevertheless, nice kata!
Improve the problems description, please. It should be possible to understand the problem without reading the testcase first. User 'kristaps' already proposed a suggestion.
Lack of test cases. Results of the solutions will be unexpected with below code.
function f(a, //comment